Towards a theory of cringe

[sabotabby]

Warning! This is a very half-assed theory post about some thoughts that have been bouncing around in my head lately and should not be taken as any more than that. It's punching up but since it has to do with public shaming, humiliation, and embarrassment, as well as discussions of transphobia and racism, I am putting it all under a cut in case that's a trigger for folks.

If you want to read about how I'm a good person, this isn't a post about that. And if you want a more deeply considered opinion from a smart person, check out ContraPoints' video about cringe, which a better blogger would have rewatched before wading back into this Discourse.




I have been thinking a lot about cringe, inspired in part by ThoughtSlime and Sophie From Mars' "Cringe Corner" episodes, where they make fun of people with laughably bad publicly stated opinions. It's extremely enjoyable for reasons that I keep skirting around the edge of examining. They go after bad people with power who use their platform to do harm (for the most part; I still have questions about the Rome Is Fake lady, though the mockery in that one is substantially gentler than it is when they go after TERFs). But what does it say about me that I—a once-bullied kid who has to try very hard to be a good person, both professionally, politically, and personally—find mocking anyone to be a fun, cathartic activity?

And not just to make it all about me, but why is cringe even a thing in the first place? What social purpose does it serve, and how does it differ from similar concepts like shame or embarrassment? And how does it overlap with power and privilege?

I have lately been thinking about how many of the Discourses, particularly around Hogwarts: Legacy, are prime examples of cringe. As in, I found myself shouting at a Reddit stranger (look, I am being publicly vulnerable today okay???) that they should feel a bit ashamed for caring more about a game for little children than the rights of trans people and Jews. And then I myself felt a bit ashamed for getting so impassioned on Reddit, a forum where I tend towards coolheaded discussion (no, really).

I am myself a cringe person. As in, I have never been conventionally attractive, I get hyperfixated on interests, I babble word salad, I make jokes that don't land properly. I stick my foot in it a lot. I get called out a fair bit over various things, and that sort of crushing shitty feeling where you've put your foot in it is a very familiar one. While I'm being publicly vulnerable, here's an example:

I once reposted the following dad joke on Facebook. "What did the nonbinary gold prospector say?" "There's gold in them/there hills!" Pretty harmless and cute, I thought, but an Indigenous friend of mine called me out, given the damage that the white lust for minerals has caused and continues to cause Indigenous communities and land. I was like, "oh shit, I'm sorry, would you like me to delete the post or leave it up with your commentary?" She wanted the latter option, and that was that. Later on she apologized for being harsh about it, and I said her callout wasn't that harsh (it wasn't at all) and everything was and remains cool. But there's a reason that exchange occurred to me now—while our friendship and political relationship is great, the actual feeling of cringe, detached from our relationship, lives on, a little free-floating bit of anxiety to occasionally be replayed along with the time everyone in my fifth grade class found out that I'd got my period.

And this is not a bad thing. This makes me just a little bit more careful about what I say and what I repost. I'm a rampant shitposter and like I say, sometimes my jokes don't land, and if you're going to be a rampant shitposter, it is legitimately valuable to have friends who will hold you to account if you unintentionally say something hurtful. Even if you're the most thoughtful person in the world, you're going to fuck up, and that feeling of cringe keeps you learning and questioning the things that you assume on account of your privilege and positionality.

Now for the politics. There was a time when shame was a significant part of political discourse. I have made comments to the effect that The Thick of It is a very upbeat, utopian historical artifact, because a lot of the plotlines involve a politician doing something shameful and losing their job over it. Shame in politics arguably ended when David Cameron fucked a pig and it didn't drive him into hiding for the rest of his life.


You've gotten this far. You deserve a meme. I deserve a Very Special Episode of TTOI about this.

Or it ended when Rob Ford smoked crack on camera. Or whatever your local equivalent is. But it's definitely not a thing anymore. That's why John Tory stepping down as mayor is so baffling to Hogtowners. He fucked a staffer? And resigned? That's so...quaint.

Shame is obviously useful as a political tool. The closest most people get to "democracy" is to cast a ballot every four years for someone who will act as an absolute monarch in the intermediate period. Shame is one of our few tools to reign politicians in when they do terrible things. And now we don't have it anymore. Accordingly we are plagued by fascists with funny hairdos that do as they please, and there's no way to get rid of them because look, you had a chance to vote them out.

Back to Harry Fucking Potter. There was also a time when if you, as an adult, wanted to read a wizard book, there were special editions with more adult-looking covers because it was slightly embarrassing to read a children's book on the subway. (They still exist; I won't link to them but you can Google them.) It's good for people of all ages to enjoy media for all ages, don't get me wrong, but that little bit of cringe that obviously existed back then was a useful corrective. If you are a consumer of children's media, it is making you reflect on what about children's media is appealing. Is it a hunger for a framework where morality is black and white and some adult figure will, at some point, pause the narrative to explain the lesson you're supposed to be getting from it at the end? To be clear—this is a real need and is understandable and everyone deserves a refuge in escapism and fantasy! But that moment of cognitive dissonance is good and helps you learn and evolve. And it's helping make sure that you don't base your entire politics and identity around it.

Today, I regularly encounter the opinion that adult people are being "bullied" for playing the wizard game. I'm sorry, what? A piece of children's media that materially benefits an absolutely toxic woman who uses her extreme wealth to influence her government and culture to pass legislation restricting the rights of an already persecuted minority group? And she owns six castles? The gamers aren't the ones being bullied here. I have a whole other rant about how the term "bullying" has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness but I would argue in the same way that it's impossible for BIPOC to be racist against white people, it's impossible to bully adults for valuing a toy over the basic human rights and physical safety of trans and nonbinary children.

What happens when we, in both subcultural spaces and in the political sphere, lose a sense of cringe? Well, we have events like GamerGate and Sad Puppies. We have grown-ass men voting for Trump out of fear that Big Mommy Hillary is going to take away their video games. We have people basing their politics and identity around their toys. We have lost the tools to say "you are harassing people over silly spaceship books" that would cause people to rejig their perspective and nip the problem in the bud.

As I was rambling about this on Discord, a friend raised an objection: Identifying media as cringe is a slippery slope. "Cringe" as a concept is often aimed at media, like romance novels, that are primarily aimed at women. She said that Sad Puppies would have been no less awful had it occurred over litfic.

My counter to this is twofold. Sad Puppies wouldn't have happened over litfic. You only get something like Sad Puppies happening when there is a sense of out-group identity that needs to be defended. Mainly the type of men who read litfic are other litfic writers and they know they're in the old boys' network. But nerds still have a fundamental belief that they are being persecuted for liking Star Wars, and they must hit back lest they lose their lunch money. Never mind that all of the hugest media properties are "nerd" media—this is about feelings for them, not material conditions.

But let's turn to romance novels, because this is interesting to me. Cringe is deployed as a weapon all the time against romance novels. Ebooks have been a blessing because you don't even need special covers to read romance and erotica on the subway anymore.

I have a lot of friends who write romance and erotica (and do quite well at it!) so while I don't read or write that kind of stuff myself, I'm a little familiar with the community and the drama that goes on in it. And there is drama and problematic shit all the time. But for some reason it doesn't do as much harm outside that community. There's not zero harm, but you don't often see something like Sad Puppies where it spills into electoral politics. Romance, erotica, and fanfic controversies hardly ever break containment. When they do, it's often because they're very funny, like the objectively hilarious Omegaverse lawsuit. So the fact that cringe exists, that assigned-women people maybe feel cringe in a more heightened way, actually makes them behave better. We are socially conditioned—through cringe, though always viewing ourselves as at least slightly shameful and embarrassing—to work out our differences more quietly. Whereas SFF drama, being more male dominated, escapes containment all the time, because no one puts limits on dudes' behaviour.

Accordingly, cringe, while oft painful, serves a valuable social function. It is to keep us humble enough to cooperate and function in society. It's shitty and unpleasant but we need it. We need to embrace and accept our own cringe—not because we should stop liking children's media or video games or whatever it is we like, but because our identity as consumers-of-media should be placed into proper perspective with our identity as political actors and members of communities. We need to take sharpened sticks to overinflated senses of importance, be they our own or that of others.

Comments

[eller]

"But for some reason it doesn't do as much harm outside that community. There's not zero harm, but you don't often see something like Sad Puppies where it spills into electoral politics. Romance, erotica, and fanfic controversies hardly ever break containment."

I'm not sure I can fully agree with that. While the "cringeification" of the romance genre very rarely generates loud, noticeable controversies, it causes a lot of harm as a part of the general war against female sexuality, because that's actually what we're looking at here! It's not a secret that the romance genre is mostly read by women, so all this "romance is not real literature" crap is definitely part of the culture that declares female-sexuality-is-evil. That it's so internalized romance readers, by and large, don't speak out publicly about this issue? (Not least because they can't mention in 'polite society' that they read romance in the first place, because the very fact will harm them socially and professionally?) That's not a sign it's harmless. Not at all. I'd argue it's actually more harmful than a handful of nerds with serious behavioral issues... Just in a quiet way, less spectacular, and easy to miss when you're not looking.

[sabotabby]

Hmm, point. But it's not harm that's caused by romance readers or writers, or even the industry as a whole. It's harm caused to.

Is it stopping romance consumers from participating in public life? Stacey Abrams rather publicly writes romance novels, under a pen name that everyone knows, in a political climate rife with misogynoir. It may be the enlightened circles that I move in but everyone who mentions this fact does it in a "and how cool is that?" kind of way.

[symbioid]

I also just want to say I have such a massive crush on Sophie. LOL. Not really that massive admittedly, but omg, squee.

[kore]

YES....and also, Fifty Shades. I *personally* hated Twilight, Fifty Shades, the whole phenomenon, but a lot of the mainstream and fannish criticism was so sexist and ugly, and so totally accepted. I wound up defending it, or rather people getting to *like* it or whatever else they want to get into, because the gender and sexual policing was so shitty. And IMHO it was a perfect example of Romance, erotica, and fanfic controversies "breaking containment" spectacularly-- because both series were about and for women's desires, and both series were also huge moneymakers.

[altamira16]

Cringe is language often used by women in an in-group. Are there examples of men using "cringe" that you know of?

I mean, we had the box-of-shame cassette tapes we kept under the bed, that consisted of music we liked in middle school but are now too-cool for. Cringe covers stuff like that. Cringe may overlap with Basic. Things get super popular, then they become basic, and then they become cringe.

Sad Puppies and Gamer Gate could not be fought with a sense of cringe. These were male dominated groups. They were not part of an in-group. They had an overly developed sense of grievance that they weaponized, mostly against women.

[sabotabby]

I'm not actually sure. I'm pretty sure men do and are capable of feeling embarrassment and shame. They may not call it that but I think they are as sensitive to it, if not more so, than women and nonbinary folks. Witness Atwood's "men's greatest fear is that women will laugh at them."

[naraht]

After re-reading this, I'm still not entirely clear on how you're understanding the difference between shame, guilt, embarrassment and cringe. This may be because I'm not entirely up on the way that 'cringe' is being used these days.

BUT I just looked it up on Urban Dictionary and the definition there does align with what I was going to suggest – that cringe, as I understand it, seems to be something that you feel when other people do something that ought to cause them shame or embarrassment. As such I think of it as being rather apolitical – you could feel angry or determined to make waves, but instead you feel cringe and/or enjoy the mockery.

I would add that someone else finding you 'cringe' doesn't necessarily mean that you should be ashamed or embarrassed. I mean, I was a Trekkie, I'm sure plenty of people would find that cringy. But in actuality they should just keep their opinions to themselves.

I'm not certain how this aligns or doesn't align with your argument – which I confess I'm having some trouble following – but I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

[sabotabby]

I am still teasing out the differences myself.

To me cringe is not something you should feel guilty or ashamed about. Guilt is something wrong; cringe is something embarrassing. And it's a useful feeling for me (either directed internally or, more commonly, the fear that someone external will direct it at me) to keep my own behaviour in line with community norms.

But admittedly this is not 2023 parlance.

[altamira16]

I think I am in this camp. I am too old to understand the ways of the "cringe," and I don't associate anything positive with it.

Content warning for me paraphrasing some transphobic bullshit

[rydra_wong]

I think the major problem I have with this that the concept of "cringe" seems to be applied (in society in general, not your post) in a way which often blurs or conflates "this person is doing something about which they should feel shame" and "this person is doing something unfashionable" -- or "likes the thing that was fashionable two years ago/is too enthusiastic about something/is socially awkward/is weird in some way/is just visibly autistic and existing in public".

Or just "is doing a thing which we can point at and deem to be 'cringe' and make it so because we've got enough social clout."

Aside from the stuff like "You like this podcast that hit mainstream popularity two years ago, how cringe-y", I have seen plenty of people saying shit along the lines of "Oh, yet another AFAB person with brightly-coloured hair calling themselves 'a non-binary autismgender demiboy' or something, criiiiiinge, they should have been bullied more."

Those levers of shame/embarassment are very powerful and available to anyone who wants to grab them.

Today, I regularly encounter the opinion that adult people are being "bullied" for playing the wizard game. I'm sorry, what? A piece of children's media

Except that Rowling would be just as toxic and giving money to her just as deserving of opprobrium if she'd made all her money writing her Robert Galbraith novels.

The problem with the wizard game isn't that it's about wizards, you know? The problem with harassing people isn't that it's over "silly spaceship books".

So the fact that cringe exists, that assigned-women people maybe feel cringe in a more heightened way, actually makes them behave better. We are socially conditioned—through cringe, though always viewing ourselves as at least slightly shameful and embarrassing—to work out our differences more quietly.

Strong disagreement. More conditioned to try to use shame and covert weapons to suppress each other, sure. Which also means more incentivized to punish anyone who trips over the invisible social tripwires or disturbs the local hierarchy.

(Why yes, I did spend all my school years at all-girls' schools. If you ever want to see that behaviour in its purest and most unfettered form ...)

ETA to clarify: my disagreement is with the idea that this constitutes behaving better or more co-operatively.

though always viewing ourselves as at least slightly shameful and embarrassing

I don't think this is necessarily a good or healthy way to live, though. And it can potentially make it harder to distinguish between things that are "bad" because they're causing harm and things that are "bad" because they've been deemed socially unacceptable for other reasons.

As in, I have never been conventionally attractive, I get hyperfixated on interests, I babble word salad, I make jokes that don't land properly.

Same! But fuck it, I refuse to accept that I should go round my whole life feeling ashamed and "cringing" because of it.

Or rather: I have spent so much of my whole life feeling ashamed and cringing because of it.

("Cringe" is also what you do when you think someone's about to hit you, of course.)

And I refuse to conflate that with the stuff where I accidentally hurt someone and get called on it and legitimately feel ashamed.

We need to take sharpened sticks to overinflated senses of importance, be they our own or that of others.

Absolutely! And personally I am a big fan of mockery as a weapon. But there's a difference between an "overinflated" sense of importance, and "just daring to exist in the world like you think you're a person."

And I've frequently seen "cringe" applied to the latter.

Re: Content warning for me paraphrasing some transphobic bullshit

[rydra_wong]

but because our identity as consumers-of-media should be placed into proper perspective with our identity as political actors and members of communities.

Again, agreed, but I don't think it's facilitated by trying to decide that certain forms of media are inherently cringe-y.

Re: Content warning for me paraphrasing some transphobic bullshit

[sabotabby]

Those levers of shame/embarassment are very powerful and available to anyone who wants to grab them.

This, of course, is a big part of the stumbling block. Because at the moment the person likely to experience the weaponization are the ones who least deserve to feel that way.

Except that Rowling would be just as toxic and giving money to her just as deserving of opprobrium if she'd made all her money writing her Robert Galbraith novels.

The problem with the wizard game isn't that it's about wizards, you know? The problem with harassing people isn't that it's over "silly spaceship books".

So this is where I differ—not because wizards and spaceships are sillier than crime and detectives, because all of those are equally silly—but because I think the emotional attachment we have with nostalgic media from our childhoods is why Rowling is a problem. Adult male thriller writers who presumably share her opinions and maybe even tweet about it are a dime a dozen. Rowling is able to act on her toxic beliefs because she has a platform given to her by a highly sentimental fanbase. I have no idea what Tom Clancy's opinions are or were on trans people, but I think someone like him, despite presumably being obscenely wealthy and a cishet man, would be easier to ignore because people bond with his work as adults. And because it's perceived as a relatively normal thing for a guy to read, unlike children's fantasy books, so there's not a sense of persecution and protectiveness associated with enjoying his work.

I don't think this is necessarily a good or healthy way to live, though. And it can potentially make it harder to distinguish between things that are "bad" because they're causing harm and things that are "bad" because they've been deemed socially unacceptable for other reasons.

That's part of why I think we should tease out the difference, though. Because there is a difference between "I've overinvested my identity in my hobbies" and "I've done something genuinely harmful."

[lilysea]

I really, really hate the word cringe, and wish it would vanish forever.

So much of what gets labelled cringe is

- people being enthusiastic about interests or hobbies

- people being neurodivergent

- people having chronic illness or disability

- people not having the money or the time or the energy to look perfectly "put together"

[kore]

This is 100% exactly how I feel. I typically see it as a weaponized insult, used especially against women, young women, neurodivergent people, "overenthusiastic" people, and so on. It's like "basic" but very toxic.

[lilysea]

I genuinely don't think the world needs the world cringe. I think we could all stop using it, and the world would be a better place

For "X did something wrong", we have the word ashamed.

"Starbucks should be ASHAMED that they told a staff member who told them that he had tested positive for COVID to come into Starbucks and make drinks for customers while he was contagious, and then fired him for tweeting about it"

For "X did nothing wrong, but it caused X loss of face/bad feelings", we have the word embarrassed.

"Because Jane's hours at work were cut without warning, she was embarrassed that she had to call the electricity company and ask for an extension to pay her power bill"

"Sarah was embarrassed that her ex girlfriend saw her in the supermarket with messy hair and stained clothes"

Cringe adds no new meaning that we need.

And 99% of the time, cringe is used in order to try to shame/embarrass people who have done nothing at all wrong.

"That hairstyle is cringe"

"That outfit is cringe"

"Liking that TV show is cringe"

"Being to poor to do X or pay for X is cringe"

I think at it's heart, the word cringe is targeted mainly at hurting
- women and AFAB people
- neurodiverse people
- chronically ill or disabled people
- poor people

[sabotabby]

Maybe? But ultimately neither Jane or Sarah should feel embarrassed. Whereas at least if I were Sarah, I would feel cringe because I know I haven't done anything embarrassing or abnormal from my usual routine (I never look put together when I run out to the supermarket; the only difference is that someone saw me who I'd want to look put together in front of).

So my issue is that it is targeted at the wrong people, primarily. Who are also, not by coincidence, the people who tend to be most hyperaware of how they behave/are perceived in public.

[naomikritzer]

I made a joke about Jacob Frey (Minneapolis mayor) being cringe on Twitter yesterday and I have to say, I stand by it: https://twitter.com/NaomiKritzer/status/1634220628877139968 I mean LOOK AT HIM. (Also, he's a dipshit with power and the whole point of his silly costume is bragging about how much more power he has now than when he took office.)

[sabotabby]

omg WHAT hahaha

see? This is why I think it's a useful concept to have.

Also, you folks have strong mayors too? How's that working out? It's going very badly here.

[blogcutter]

I'll admit to getting a guilty giggle out of your dad joke. But at least in that case, you did have a friend to highlight a source of potential offensiveness of the joke that you may not have considered. In some cases, the vulnerable people being harmed are not in a position to call somebody out. And for a society that aims to be inclusive and to integrate people who not so long ago were institutionalized or otherwise very much on the margins, that's a big problem.

I once called out a friend for wearing a T-shirt that read "My money went to Nigeria and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." Some people in our circle thought it was absolutely hilarious. But a person with intellectual disabilities or dementia or from a different culture or with a different native language or simply someone who was a bit naive would likely not appreciate the irony.

Many scams are never reported because the victims are too embarrassed to come forward. If more did, it would be easier to track down and punish the perpetrators. And I think too that we direct too much emphasis on some uncontrollable bad-guy perpetrator in a far-off country while deflecting responsibility away from our our governments, which ought to be protecting and safeguarding our rights. This is particularly true in an era when we are pretty much compelled by our governance structures to perform most of our transactions electronically.

[dissectionist]

As an autistic and disabled person (both groups where we constantly have others deciding on our behalf what we might or might not understand and/or like, and then setting themselves up as our supposed protectors without ever asking us if we want that), I had a deep negative reaction to “But a person with intellectual disabilities or dementia or from a different culture or with a different native language or simply someone who was a bit naive would likely not appreciate the irony.”

[nostalgia]

The old boys networks have always felt above any sense of "cringe" and I'm not sure how they could be made to feel any shame when they're being terrible, but on the other side cringe tends to impact disproportionately on people who aren't them - like those romance novel women, who are dissuaded from taking their drama further by having been raised to sit down and shut up and I am unsure if that's worth it when the terrible men don't seem to be likely to adopt any feelings of cringe? SFF drama can involve women and go further, and here I remember opining to someone at some point that the reason women seem to commit more "fails" where they offend an oppressed group is that they're more willing to apologise which is the right thing to do but also drags it all out and now it's all over the internet that she did that bad thing/mistake, compared to the man who just rudely Tweets at someone and refuses to engage with legit criticism of their works. Some sort of equalising needs to happen and it absolutely needs to be the dudes taking more responsibility but idk how to make that happen and in the meantime I am on occasion uncomfortable. But then there *are* some women who double down, like Rowling who has thrown herself fully into TERFdom. If I rememeber right she at first lied about her Twitter Likes and then she had that article she seemed to genuinely think would absolve her of any allegations of transphobia because oh she likes *some* trans people just not *those* ones which was... ARGH! But I wonder if she'd have responded better to criticism early on if she wasn't a billionaire constantly being told she's a genius.

[sabotabby]

SFF drama can involve women and go further, and here I remember opining to someone at some point that the reason women seem to commit more "fails" where they offend an oppressed group is that they're more willing to apologise which is the right thing to do but also drags it all out and now it's all over the internet that she did that bad thing/mistake, compared to the man who just rudely Tweets at someone and refuses to engage with legit criticism of their works.

This is definitely something I've noticed. Rowling is immune but I see women being dragged far more often than men, and I think it's absolutely because women and nonbinary people are more vulnerable to social pressure than cis men.

But I wonder if she'd have responded better to criticism early on if she wasn't a billionaire constantly being told she's a genius.

Unfortunately I don't think she could have been fixed past book 3. Book 4 was when it became clear that she didn't even need to listen to her editor. By book 5 it was definitely too late.

[ioplokon]

Don't want to get too into the weeds since this you said this is a rough first pass; if this is something you're going to keep working through, some thoughts I had:
1. Just defining cringe (vs guilt especially). The example you give of yourself being cringe is something that to me would be "a time you felt guilty" whereas cringe is something I associate more with active mockery. In my understanding, if you call someone cringe & especially if you're doing so, eg, as part of a podcast where they are not involved, you're not interested in acting cooperatively with them or having any kind of ongoing social relationship. If you point out someone is wrong or make them feel guilty, that is less the case. There is maybe a dynamic where we impose cringe on ourselves when we feel guilty?? I think there's a different dynamic going on when we say "I'm so fucking cringe" vs "[Other] is cringe".
2. On the gender analysis, I think this is maybe not framed correctly. Is assigned gender (vs perceived gender?) the proper lens to frame susceptibility to cringe/consequences? I also think that in terms of social dynamics (vs political consequences), men are highly aware of and vigilant about "cringe" - and in fact weaponize the concept to carve out acceptable spheres of social nonconformity for themselves (by saying, hey the real freaks are over there!) - see all the furry discourse. In general, though, I agree that "cringe" is about enforcing community norms - but then the content of those norms matter as much, if not more, than the "cringe" mechanism (which seems to be pretty broad in calibration; are there narrower methods that would be more/as effective?)
3. More than pig-fucking, I think it's shocking how little flack Cameron gets over Brexit. Which is a larger discussion: is focusing on politicians cringeyness a successful tactic for bringing them down? or a distraction from their larger wrongdoings? I'm not sure. Tactically, it seems like on the way up, cringe can be used successfully (see Jeb!) but once someone's "arrived" it's less effective? And also selects for shamelessness in public/political life.

[sabotabby]

I probably won't take it too much farther because it doesn't seem to be landing as intended.

There is maybe a dynamic where we impose cringe on ourselves when we feel guilty?? I think there's a different dynamic going on when we say "I'm so fucking cringe" vs "[Other] is cringe".

Absolutely. The example I gave isn't really one I'd associate with guilt, b/c I responded appropriately and the callout was constructive and cooperative. I'd have felt guilty if I dug in, or if my friend said that she was personally hurt, but that wasn't at all the case.

Is assigned gender (vs perceived gender?) the proper lens to frame susceptibility to cringe/consequences?

Hmm, good question. In my experience, the people who are hyperaware of cringe tend to be everyone but cis men.

More than pig-fucking, I think it's shocking how little flack Cameron gets over Brexit. Which is a larger discussion: is focusing on politicians cringeyness a successful tactic for bringing them down? or a distraction from their larger wrongdoings? I'm not sure. Tactically, it seems like on the way up, cringe can be used successfully (see Jeb!) but once someone's "arrived" it's less effective? And also selects for shamelessness in public/political life.

This is, I think, the question. Like why was Giambrone vulnerable to having an affair but Rob Ford wasn't (or vulnerable to speaking in Jamaican patois as a white guy, or smoking crack, or any of the other deeply embarrassing shit he did)? Why is Tory vulnerable but not Doug Ford? But I think it's the last question that's most interesting to me—are we breeding out the brand of politician that can be shamed?

Cringe

[agoodwinsmith]

I want to think about the word "cringe" for a bit. I think it is facing a transformation like the word "gay" did. Those of us who liked to use the word "gay" the way the Flintstone theme song does just had to accept that the word was moving and wriggling into new territory.

As RYDRA_WONG says above "Cringe is also what you do when you think someone is about to hit you." And that's about where I still am with "cringe". Cringe is something I do when I watch I Love Lucy and it appears that Lucy doesn't have enough awareness to be embarrassed on her own behalf, so I'm going to have to feel embarrassed for her. I cringe in anticipation of the blow from second-hand embarrassment.

This use of cringe is still from the era of "cringing cur" - which is an insult one antagonist throws at another, impugning their courage. The metaphor is of a miserable dog beaten so often and so much that it cringes every time someone approaches it. It is also usually tied up so that no matter how placating it might be, it cannot escape the viciousness.

It sounds like "cringe" hasn't settled on a single new meaning (it may not), but that the site of the cringe is moving from the observer to the observed. Could we say that the dog beater is cringey? They are doing something that makes other people cringe on their behalf because they are not aware enough to cringe for themselves?

Re: Cringe

[sabotabby]

Slang vocabulary is very nuanced, and rapidly evolving amongst The Kids. Like where I see anyone say cringe out loud irl it’s applied to oneself or one’s peers, but my kids tend to be a little nicer than most. At most it’s fairly lightweight as an insult.

I guess for me it’s hard to differentiate why anyone would think that the aforementioned blue-haired demiguy is somehow cringe and the yellow-haired man with the obvious combover and ill-fitting suit is not. And, of course, the blue-haired demiguy is obviously the one with the self-regulation skills, which the yellow-haired man could use.

I think you need a smaller brush …

[flamingsword]

…because you are missing some important fine detail.

I am not sure I am with you on conflating cringe with shame with embarrassment with guilt with humiliation (via the Sad Puppies). Those are all different feelings from different situations and people respond to them differently. I will have to look up the numbers in the morning but guilt, the feeling that we did something bad, is positively correlated with improved behavior and growth mindsets, while shame, the feeling that we are something bad, is negatively correlated to both of those things.

Have you ever heard of the Buddhist concept of the Near Enemy? I think shame is the near enemy of guilt, and therefore of accountability. It seems like shame should be the friendly neighbor of guilt, when it’s more like the neighbor that keeps calling the HOA on you, trying to get you fined and asked to move out.

Re: I think you need a smaller brush …

[sabotabby]

I will have to look up the numbers in the morning but guilt, the feeling that we did something bad, is positively correlated with improved behavior and growth mindsets, while shame, the feeling that we are something bad, is negatively correlated to both of those things.

Hmm, this is an interesting framework. I for one don't tend to associate guilt with anything good or positive, except in the way that it restrains my own behaviour.

[grimjim]

Before I write anything else, is everyone aware of this framing from sociology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt%E2%80%93shame%E2%80%93fear_spectrum_of_cultures

[sabotabby]

First I’ve heard of it, though I’m aware of the book.

[numb3r_5ev3n]

1. I feel like this video is relevant, though it does feel like Sarah Z at several points is calling out all of geek culture as being cringe on some level? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vWJE8k-Meo&ab_channel=SarahZ (I'm not trying to make anyone watch an hour-and-a-half long video so don't feel obliged to do so, but yeah.) Almost like "is this shit we actually cared enough about to have discourse over and spend money on? That seems kind of cringe now."

2. I kind of feel like "cringe" has lost some of its meaning as many times it's applied to anyone who has a passionate opinion about anything or is even expressing genuine emotion about anything.

[sabotabby]

Definitely it has different meanings to different people because most people commenting seem to have experienced it being used offensively and I’d say the vast majority of the time I see people using it on themselves.

I think I watched that video. I relate to her a lot tbh. She has a fairly mature, balanced perspective on fandom that amounts to “should we really care about this??” And then proceeds to make feature film length YouTube videos about it. Bless.

[rydra_wong]

Tangential, but re: the sort of shit we know for a fact that JKR is funding (as opposed to the crowdfunders for things like bullshit lawsuits against trans-inclusive services which somehow seem to end up suddenly having a lot of money), and it's local knowledge that more people should know about:

https://thedreadvampy.tumblr.com/post/711060432471916544/btw-i-dont-actually-give-a-shit-about-wizard-game

[sabotabby]

I think I vaguely knew about it.

I guess in a lot of ways that's why talking about the Wizard Game is important even though everything I've learned about it has been against my will. Because she's richer than god. If we ignore her, she can keep doing these things in the dark. Many other rich fuckers do. But this at least is an entryway into talking about it and maybe doing something about it, I guess?